The heroes are doubles in the novel crime and punishment. Raskolnikov and his doubles in Dostoevsky's novel Crime and Punishment
Mirror image of the hero
In Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky's novel Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov's doubles are a number of heroes. Reading a work for the first time, we cannot understand all the nuances and subtleties of the content. Detective story completely captures our imagination. A closer look at the writer's intentions raises a number of questions. It seems incomprehensible that some personalities appear on the pages of the book, whose history and fate are far from the life of the main character. In fact, Dostoevsky does not have a single extra character. Each of the characters carries its own meaning and serves to more fully reveal the personality of the main character. The theme of duality in the novel “Crime and Punishment” is very important.
Of course, at the center of the novel is the gloomy figure of Rodion Raskolnikov. It is no coincidence that the author gave his hero a speaking surname. Personality young man contradictory and, like a mosaic, consists of disparate, seemingly unconnected parts. Each of them has its own mirror image in the novel in the form of a separate hero. Let's get to know them in more detail.
Doubles of Rodion Raskolnikov
The only friend
According to the plot of the story, the first of the hero’s doubles is Dmitry Razumikhin. The young man is the opposite of the main character. He is active, sociable and cheerful. The student endures the blows of fate, makes plans and does not fall into despair. His friend, on the contrary, is gloomy and taciturn, and does not know how to cope with life's problems. Against the background of Razumikhin’s optimism, Raskolnikov’s apathy becomes brighter and more understandable to the reader. “Scoundrel man! And the one who considers him a scoundrel is a scoundrel!” - the young man is convinced. F. M. Dostoevsky also points out the similarities of the heroes. They are young and smart, decent and noble. Both dream of a great future, but they choose different paths to achieve their goals. Razumikhin works tirelessly, trying to cope with poverty, and the impatient Raskolnikov commits a crime for the sake of an idea.
Honorable groom
In the mirror image of the main character, we will notice another double. This is the happy chosen one of Sister Raskolnikov, Pyotr Petrovich Luzhin. A hypocritical person who tries to appear honest and noble, in fact has a vile and deceitful nature. What character trait of our hero is clearly depicted in this image? Luzhin, going towards his goal, is guided by the principle: “All means are good.” He takes advantage of Dunya’s plight, slanderes Sonya, caring only about his own well-being. Raskolnikov, testing his theory, acts in the same way. The image of Pyotr Petrovich Luzhin helps to understand the egoistic essence of the main character's idea.
Gloomy Svidrigailov
The mysterious figure of Svidrigailov evokes hostility from the reader. This is a vicious person for whom there are no laws of morality and ethics. He is capable of murder, molesting young children, cheating on his wife and other disgusting acts. But his phrase: “We are birds of a feather,” addressed to Raskolnikov, makes us understand that the heroes have similar traits. Rodion Raskolnikov, just like the mysterious Mr. Svidrigailov, commits a crime. People are dying because of him, but he feels no remorse. Such behavior makes him similar to this negative character. The figure of Svidrigailov is full of contradictions, just like the image of the main character. He is capable of noble deeds: helps Marmeladov’s orphaned children, gives money to Sonya Marmeladova. But this does not change his disgusting essence. Getting to know him shows what terrible consequences denial of the commandments of Christianity and impunity can lead to.
Lebezyatnikov Andrey Semyonovich
This hero, according to the author, in a grotesque form reflects the passion of young people for new theories. He is a parody of Raskolnikov's obsession with his theory. Lebezyatnikov is stupid, but kind and harmless. Luzhin's meanness is as unpleasant to him as to Rodion Raskolnikov.
Wise investigator
Porfiry Petrovich, to some extent, can also be classified as a double of the main character. A person with experience and experience understands the confused student and sincerely sympathizes with him. He himself managed to stop in time and understand fashionable modern theories and is now trying to save Raskolnikov: “Become the sun, everyone will see you! The sun, first of all, must be the sun!”
Female counterparts of the hero
Certain character traits of the young man are reflected in the heroines of the story. Describing Avdotya Romanovna Raskolnikova, the writer points out her external resemblance to her brother and draws attention to their kindred spirits. The girl is smart, proud and independent, just like her brother. But unlike him, these character traits help her choose the right way in life, understand people and not make fatal mistakes.
The most important person in the hero’s life is Sofya Semyonovna Marmeladova. A believer in God, kind Sonya differs from Raskolnikov. But they also have something in common: both committed a crime, broke the law, became outcasts. Only Sonya considers herself a sinner and longs to accept suffering in order to atone for her guilt, while Rodion Raskolnikov is confident that he is right. In the image of Sonya F.M. Dostoevsky tried to convey to the reader the main idea of the work and finally debunk Raskolnikov’s inhuman theory.
The role of doubles in the novel
Raskolnikov's doubles in Dostoevsky's novel Crime and Punishment help to understand complex nature the main character, consider individual character traits, as if through a magnifying glass. Thanks to this technique, we understand the motives of actions and realize the inevitability of punishment for the crime committed.
Work test
Character system. Raskolnikov occupies a central place in the system of characters in the novel, since all the main lines of the narrative lead to him. It connects various episodes and situations of the novel. All other characters appear on stage primarily because they are necessary to characterize the main character: they force him to argue with them, sympathize, worry, and cause him to have a flow of a wide variety of impressions and emotions.
The Crime and Punishment character system is dynamic : the ratio of the actors and the characters who have left the stage is constantly changing. Some characters stop participating in the action, while others, on the contrary, appear. Marmeladov (part 2, chapter 7) and Katerina Ivanovna (part 5, chapter 5) die. Luzhin in last time appears in part 5, ch. 3, Porfiry Petrovich - in part 6, ch. 2; Svidrigailov shot himself in part 6, ch. 6. In the epilogue, the character system changes dramatically: only two characters remain - Raskolnikov and Sonya. This is connected both with the eventual side of the work (the events described in the epilogue are a direct consequence of the plot events: Raskolnikov ends up in hard labor, Sonya follows him), and with the fact that, according to the writer’s plan, it is Sonya who should play special role in the fate of the main character, to help him be reborn to a new life.
Raskolnikov's relationships with other characters in the novel are determined by the fact that he became a criminal. Their conversations, clashes, the nature of their communication are related to legal and - in to a greater extent- with the moral status of Raskolnikov. He is not at all what most other characters take him for: it is impossible to prove his guilt, he has a complete alibi, but he is the killer. This contradiction complicates Raskolnikov’s relationships with other heroes and makes them extremely tense.
Inner life minor characters is depicted in far less detail than Raskolnikov’s inner life. However, each of them has their own belief system, which can be compared with the protagonist's belief system. The crime of Raskolnikov - the “ideological killer” - is determined by his worldview. By comparing Raskolnikov’s worldview with the views of other heroes, the author tests its strength and truth.
Raskolnikov's relationships with Luzhin, Svidrigailov, sister, mother, Razumikhin, Marmeladovs, Sonya, Porfiry Petrovich can be defined as conflicting. Despite the fact that Raskolnikov has external similarities with many characters (social and financial status, relationships with the law and conscience), more important are the deep internal differences (ideological, moral, psychological), which do not allow him to live the same way they live .
Raskolnikov has his own special path in life. A number of possibilities open up before him: he can repent and try to atone for his guilt or, conversely, follow the path of crime to the end. Raskolnikov has to make a moral choice. Minor characters The novel presents various life possibilities that the main character can accept or reject.
The novel is built on a system of doubles: each character has a kind of mirror image:
1) Raskolnikov - Luzhin. They both have their own theory: “blood according to conscience” for Raskolnikov and “a whole caftan” for Luzhin. They immediately feel it, so they hate each other. But Luzhin (he is going to marry Raskolnikov’s sister Duna) is a rather vile character, he is capable of meanness.
2) Raskolnikov - Lebezyatnikov. This character is a complete caricature of the principles that N.G. voiced in his novels. Chernyshevsky. A mocking image is created.
3)Raskolnikov - Svidrigailov. He is a double, because he is also a forced killer, with several deaths on his conscience. But they also agree that they both understand their actions, that it is not good. As a result, Raskolknikov surrenders to the police, and Svidrigailov commits suicide.
4) Raskolnikov - Sonya Marmeladova: the sharpest contrast between the two positions. Their comparison is based on the fact that Raskolnikov lives by reason, and Sonya lives by faith. And if Raskolnikov’s morality turns out to be sick because of the theory, then Sonya, despite selling her body, is spiritually pure.
Sonya is the second main character novel. She does not understand Raskolnikov’s theory, does not understand how you can sacrifice others for your own good - it is natural for her to sacrifice herself, her soul is adapted to suffering. And in this character trait she also has counterparts:
1) Sonya - Lizaveta. They are both prostitutes, both meekly accept the suffering that befalls them. Lizaveta meekly accepts her death, but Sonya, on the contrary, helps Raskolnikov escape.
2) Sonya - Dunya. Outwardly, these girls bear little resemblance: Dunya is a determined person, she is socially active and prosperous. However, Dunya also sacrifices herself for the sake of her brother and mother (for example, she works for Svidrigailov and agrees to marry Luzhin), and also lives by faith, and not by reason.
3)Sonya - Mikolka. They both want to suffer. Mikolka admits that he committed Raskolnikov’s crime, without even knowing who is really to blame. He lives all the time with the thought of God, strives to cleanse his soul through suffering.
Thus, In the novel, two worlds collide: the truth of reason and the truth of faith. Until the epilogue, it is not clear how their struggle will end. But faith still wins: when Sonya comes to Raskolnikov for hard labor and brings him the Gospel, he reads and understands that it is really necessary to repent and suffer.
Let's look at the characteristics of the characters
Raskolnikov's spiritual "doubles" - Luzhin and Svidrigailov - have much in common with the main character. In particular, they are united by the principle of permissiveness that they profess. But the similarity between Raskolnikov and his “doubles” is purely external. This can be seen by comparing the worldview and moral character of these heroes with the worldview and moral character of Raskolnikov.
Luzhin roughly expresses the principle “everything is permitted,” which underlies Raskolnikov’s theory. But Raskolnikov is not characterized by Luzhin’s prudence and selfishness.
Raskolnikov declares the happiness of mankind as his goal , not your own happiness. To contribute to the happiness of humanity, according to Raskolnikov, is moral duty“great people”, even if it makes them themselves unhappy. Suffering, according to Raskolnikov, is often reverse side permissiveness: “Let him suffer if he feels sorry for the victim...”. " An extraordinary man“Raskolnikova not only violates the moral law, but also takes full responsibility for this: “Suffering and pain are always mandatory for a broad consciousness and a deep heart. Truly great people... must feel great sadness in the world.”
Luzhin, on the contrary, is guided in life only by considerations of his own benefit and his own pleasure.. If Raskolnikov recognizes the existence of moral laws, although he violates them, then Luzhin does not have the slightest idea of morality. His inner world is quite primitive: all his experiences are deeply selfish in nature. The only ethical criterion for Luzhin is egoism. He has his own theory, according to which the only goal of every person is personal good: “If you love yourself alone, then you will manage your affairs properly and your caftan will remain intact. Economic truth adds that the more private affairs and, so to speak, entire caftans are organized in a society, the more solid foundations there are for it and the more common affairs are organized in it.” With “scientific” reasoning about “economic truth” and the “common cause,” Luzhin is only trying to veil his egoism: “If... until now they told me: “love” and I loved, then what came of it? ... - what happened was that I tore the caftan in half, shared it with my neighbor, and we were both left half naked... Science says: love yourself first of all, for everything in the world is based on personal interest.”
Raskolnikov is alien to any prudence, his first mental movement is to help those who need help, even if he does this to his own detriment and contrary to “common sense.” Moreover, Raskolnikov is absolutely impractical - he cannot even settle financial matters with his landlady. Pyotr Petrovich does not deviate for a minute from “common sense” not only in his reasoning, but also in Everyday life. He is not at all concerned about the problems of other people, but he will never commit an act that is disadvantageous to him personally.
In “permissiveness,” Raskolnikov goes to the end, committing an act that involves enormous risk for him and does not promise him any specific benefit. In addition, it was extremely difficult for Raskolnikov to decide on this act. Luzhin, without hesitation, committed meanness - he slandered a defenseless girl who had done nothing wrong to him - only in order to “set things right” with his marriage. He was confident of his complete impunity, that dishonest act cannot have any legal consequences for him. Unlike Raskolnikov, the cynical Luzhin does not experience the slightest remorse.
And finally, Luzhin and Raskolnikov are not comparable in terms of intellectual and spiritual development. Raskolnikov - philosopher who takes to heart the evil and injustice that the world is full of, and the suffering of other people. He is trying to find some explanation for all this. Luzhin is a limited, self-righteous person He is exclusively occupied with narcissism, all his interests are focused on himself, his spiritual horizon is extremely narrow. Raskolnikov’s “theory” is the fruit of deep observations of life, long and painful reflection. She was suffered through by himself (despite the fact that “it turned out very unoriginal,” according to Porfiry Petrovich). Luzhin’s “theory” - the basis of his behavior - is just a repetition of other people’s words, popular opinions, fashionable pseudoscientific “truths”. The fact that Luzhin is in a hurry to express his views is the result of his attempts “just in case to run ahead and curry favor with “our younger generations.” The author directly says that Luzhin “when visiting, for example, Raskolnikov, he had already learned to somehow round off famous phrases from someone else's voice."
Svidrigailov is Raskolnikov’s second spiritual “double”. Outwardly, they are, as Svidrigailov noted, “birds of a feather,” but there are deep internal differences between them. Svidrigailov is a vicious, depraved person. He does not hide the fact that most of his actions are the result of his pathological voluptuousness.
Svidrigailov mocks morality, saying to Raskolnikov: “Why are you so obsessed with virtue? Have mercy, father, I am a sinful man.” His judgments about people, especially women, are deeply cynical. Svidrigailov is equally indifferent to good and evil. He is capable of doing both bad and good deeds (helping Sonya and Katerina Ivanovna’s children) for no apparent reason. He does not believe in “virtue,” considering any talk about it to be hypocrisy, an attempt to deceive himself and others: “Everyone looks out for himself and lives the happiest if he can deceive himself better than everyone else.” Svidrigailov is deliberately frank with Raskolnikov and even finds pleasure in “being naked and naked” (an expression from Dostoevsky’s story “Bobok”), telling him about the most shameful facts of his life - that he was a sharper and was “beaten”, about Marfa Petrovna, who “bargained and bought” him “for thirty thousand pieces of silver,” about her love affairs.
Svidrigailov lives in absolute idleness. Here is his “biography”: “A nobleman, he served for two years in the cavalry, then he hung around here in St. Petersburg, then he married Marfa Petrovna and lived in the village.” For him, debauchery is a surrogate for the meaning of life, the only more or less true thing in the world: “In this debauchery, at least, there is something permanent, based even on nature and not subject to fantasy...” For Svidrigailov, this is “at least an activity. ... If it weren’t for this, I probably would have had to shoot myself.”
But Svidrigailov is a mysterious man. He is very secretive and cunning. Despite his buffoonery, he is very smart. Svidrigailov seems to Raskolnikov either “the emptiest and most insignificant villain in the world,” or a person who can reveal something “new” to him: “... wasn’t he expecting something new from him, instructions, a way out?” Svidrigailov convinces Raskolnikov that they are similar in some ways: “It still seems to me that there is something in you that suits mine.” It is interesting that Raskolnikov himself has a desire to “test Svidrigailov: what is this?” ", "he kind of needs him for something." However, Raskolnikov, unlike Svidrigailov, does not think that they have anything in common: “Even their villainy could not be the same.” Svidrigailov “was also very unpleasant, obviously extremely depraved, certainly cunning and deceptive, and perhaps very angry. ... True, he worked for Katerina Ivanovna’s children; but who knows why and what this means? This person always has some intentions and projects.”
Svidrigailov seems to many to be a terrible villain surrounded by a demonic aura. There are many rumors about his atrocities, he becomes the source of all sorts of misfortunes for those around him: because of him, Dunya was persecuted, he is accused of the death of Marfa Petrovna. Svidrigailov evokes fear and disgust in many people. Dunya speaks of him “almost with a shudder”: “This is a terrible person. I can’t imagine anything more terrible...” Even Svidrigailov’s appearance, his demeanor and the way he spends his time are “demonic”: his face is “strange”, “like a mask” (“There was something terribly unpleasant in this handsome and extremely youthful... face”), “buffoonery” ", mysterious behavior, cheating, addiction to "sewers".
But under the mask of a “demonic” personality hides the most a common person. Svidrigailov cannot free himself from simple and natural human feelings: fear of death (“I’m afraid of death and don’t like it when they talk about it”), love, pity (“The image of Dounia appeared before him exactly as she was when, having fired the first time, she was terribly frightened, lowered the revolver and , dead, looked at him, so that he would have managed to grab her twice, and she would not have raised her hand in defense if he himself had not reminded her. He remembered how at that moment he really felt sorry for her, as if his heart sank..." It is even possible that Svidrigailov’s love for Dunechka could contribute to his moral revival if it were divided. He even experiences something like remorse: ghosts from his past life and have nightmares.
It is no coincidence that Svidrigailov compares himself with Raskolnikov (“You yourself are a decent cynic ...”): he does not believe in the possibility of a moral revival of the criminal, in the fact that Raskolnikov will find in himself “the strength to stop.” Shortly before his death, Svidrigailov thinks about him again: “And a scoundrel, however, this Raskolnikov! I carried a lot on myself. He could be a big scam over time, when nonsense pops up, but now he wants to live too much! Regarding this point, these people are scoundrels.” Svidrigailov is a hero who follows the path of crime to the end, committing suicide.
Thus, Raskolnikov differs significantly from both Luzhin and Svidrigailov. Raskolnikov, according to Porfiry Petrovich, “didn’t fool himself for long,” he is able to “resurrect to a new life.” Unlike Svidrigailov, he does not commit suicide, and this proves that life has not lost its meaning for him, even if he himself thinks differently. It's still alive in him moral sense, despite the fact that Raskolnikov is trying to “step over” him: he cannot ignore human suffering (the episode with the girl on the boulevard, helping the Marmeladovs, the story with a sick student and his old father, saving children during a fire). This spontaneous, unintentional, but completely obvious “altruism” of the hero is his fundamental difference from Luzhin and Svidrigailov. But the very fact that Raskolnikov’s ideas are close to the worldview of his spiritual “doubles” proves that the hero is on the wrong path.
Sonya Marmeladova is the moral antipode of Raskolnikov. N But they also have something in common: both of them are outcasts, both are very lonely. Raskolnikov feels this, telling Sonya: “We are cursed together, together we will go.” He is drawn to this unfortunate girl, because she is the only person who can understand him. The thought of revealing your secret to someone else, even to a loved one- sister, mother, Razumikhin - horrifies him. Therefore, Raskolnikov confesses to the murder to Sonya, and it is she who follows him “to hard labor.”
Sonya understood with her heart the most important thing in Raskolnikov’s confession: Raskolnikov is unhappy, he is suffering. In his theory, “she... did not understand anything,” but she felt its injustice. She does not believe in the “right to kill,” objects to Raskolnikov: “Do you have the right to kill?” Sonya maintained her faith in God, despite all the misfortunes she experienced. Therefore, she is a criminal (“harlot”) only externally: “all this shame... touched her only mechanically...”. She chose a different path than Raskolnikov - not rebellion, but humility before God. According to Dostoevsky, it is this path that leads to salvation. Having resigned herself, Sonya saves not only herself, but also Raskolnikov. It was his love for Sonya that opened up for him the possibility of reconciliation with life, with people (it is no coincidence that the convicts’ attitude towards Raskolnikov changed after his meeting with Sonya). Sonya’s self-sacrifice helped the hero take the first step - to abandon a rational understanding of life: “... he would not have allowed anything consciously now; he only felt. Instead of dialectics, life came..."
Mother Pulcheria Alexandrovna and sister Dunechka occupy a rather modest place in the system of characters. Between Raskolnikov and his sister and mother there is only the appearance of a family relationship; in fact, they are almost strangers. Raskolnikov's mother and sister cannot help him, although they realize that he is in great grief. Dostoevsky showed that the crime led not only to the disintegration of Raskolnikov’s personality, but also to the destruction of his family.
Communication with his mother and sister, whom Raskolnikov has no one more valuable in the world, brings him terrible suffering. The meeting of the Raskolnikovs in St. Petersburg turned out to be painful, not what they imagined it to be. The hero thinks that his love for loved ones pushed him to kill: “Oh, if I were alone and no one loved me and I myself would never love anyone! All this wouldn’t exist!” But by his crime he forever “cut off” himself from them, making both himself and them unhappy. Raskolnikov caused the illness and death of his mother.
Having met his mother and sister, Raskolnikov realized “that now he can’t talk about anything else, never with anyone.” This thought is painful for him. He understands that from now on he and his family have different paths in life, so he decides to leave them, telling Sonya: “Today I left my family, ... my mother and sister. I won't go to them now. I tore everything up there.”
Raskolnikov is primarily to blame for the collapse of family relationships. But his mother and sister are also not free from tragic guilt. And although they did not commit any crime, they had “criminal” (in the broad, moral sense) intentions. Dunya wanted to sacrifice herself for her brother, to marry a man whom she did not love or respect, and who also did not respect her. Dunya's alleged marriage to Luzhin infuriated Raskolnikov. From his point of view, giving away “your moral freedom” “for comfort” is an even greater crime than “going to the panel”, like Sonechka Marmeladova: “Do you understand that Luzhin’s cleanliness is the same as Sonechka’s cleanliness, and maybe even worse, nastier, meaner, because you, Dunechka, still rely on excess comfort, but there it’s simply a question of starvation!” If Dunya had nevertheless married Luzhin, then she too would have become a criminal. Pulcheria Alexandrovna’s fault is that she, as a mother, did not oppose this marriage. Realizing what kind of person Luzhin was (she “blew it out” every now and then in her letter to Raskolnikov), she nevertheless decided to sacrifice her daughter for the sake of her son. Dunechka's sacrifice is insulting to Raskolnikov. If he had accepted it, he would have confirmed that he was a “scoundrel”: “What did you really think about me? I don’t want your sacrifice, Dunechka, I don’t want it, mother! This won’t happen while I’m alive!.. I won’t accept it!”
The Marmeladov family occupies an important place in the system of characters in the novel. Semyon Zakharovich, a debased official, interested Raskolnikov “at first sight” - during their first meeting in a tavern. Raskolnikov himself believed that his acquaintance with Marmeladov did not happen by chance: he “several times later recalled this first impression and even attributed it to a premonition.” Marmeladov and his wife Katerina Ivanovna, like Raskolnikov, belong to the world of the “humiliated and insulted”; their fates are comparable to the fate of the protagonist.
They, like Raskolnikov, are at a dead end in life, suffering painfully from the fact that their pitiful situation does not correspond to their ambitions. However, claims to “nobility” did not prevent the Marmeladovs from accepting Sonechka’s sacrifice: “What a well, however, they managed to dig! and enjoy it! ... We cried and got used to it. A scoundrel gets used to everything!” - Raskolnikov thinks about them. Although the hero himself is also accustomed to “taking advantage”—to live at the expense of his mother and sister—he suffers and is indignant as he observes the tragicomic life of the Marmeladovs.
In communicating with this family, Raskolnikov shows his best human qualities: ability to pity and compassion. The selfless help that he provides to Katerina Ivanovna and her children, the care for them, indicates that there are moral laws that his theory cannot reject.
Marmeladov's death is an important event in the novel. Raskolnikov abandoned his intention to go to the “office”, although “he probably decided about the office and knew for sure that now everything would end.” His participation in the events associated with the accident is accompanied by a special elation. He launched a feverish activity, “was in amazing excitement,” “busted” around Marmeladov, “as if it were about his own father.” He almost rejoiced at this incident as a way out of the painful situation of moral choice, a kind of “postponement” of this choice, an opportunity not to think about his own problems for a while. She appeared just when he was “definitely clinging to everything.” After Raskolnikov gave the money and left Katerina Ivanovna, he “was in the most excellent mood,” despite the tragedy of the events. It seemed to him that there was still hope for him, that he had “won” after all, that “his life together with the old woman had not yet died.”
Razumikhin is one of Raskolnikov’s antipodes. At the very beginning of the novel, the author briefly and rather superficially characterizes him: “kind”, “communicative”, “cheerful”; “very intelligent; although... sometimes it’s simple”; “He could drink endlessly, but he could not drink at all.” Further events and behavior of Razumikhin do not refute this characterization, but also do not add anything new to it. But this does not mean that Razumikhin’s character is simpler than Raskolnikov’s character. The author notes that he has his own “idea”, his own life position- under the “simplicity” of Razumikhin “there was hidden both depth and dignity.” Razumikhin's love for Duna testifies to his ability to experience strong feelings, despite the fact that the line of their relationship is barely outlined and is not directly related to the central problem of the novel.
Characters, life principles and the behavior of Razumikhin and Raskolnikov is opposite. If Razumikhin is “an unusually cheerful and sociable guy, kind to the point of simplicity,” then Raskolnikov “was... somehow arrogantly proud and uncommunicative: as if he was hiding something to himself.” Razumikhin, being a “not stupid” person, is guided in his actions and relationships with people primarily by feelings, likes and dislikes, and “innate” ideas about morality. According to Razumikhin (it coincides with the opinion of Dostoevsky himself), the “living process of life” does not obey rationalistic schemes. Attempts to live only by reason impoverish a person’s personality, suppress his naturally inherent moral sense, and lead to tragic mistakes.
Razumikhin’s “remarkable” trait is inexhaustible optimism: “No failures ever embarrassed him and no bad circumstances seemed to be able to crush him.” Razumikhin and Raskolnikov are in equally difficult financial situations. But although poverty does not bother Razumikhin and earning money is not a problem for him, he is quite enterprising and efficient: “He was very poor and decidedly, alone, supported himself, earning money by doing some work. He knew an abyss of sources from which he could draw...”
Raskolnikov is “crushed by poverty,” humiliated by it, but does not want to earn money, like Razumikhin: “He completely stopped and did not want to deal with his daily affairs.” From Raskolnikov’s point of view, this is pointless, since it does not lead to achieving his goal: “What can I do for dimes? Do I really need this now?” Raskolnikov wants to “break the whole bank at once”; his friend’s “noble” poverty disgusts him. Life paths Raskolnikova and Razumikhin sharply separated. Raskolnikov understands that no one can support his mother and sister better than Razumikhin, and therefore asks him “not to leave” them, but his friend’s concern and his “practical” advice only irritate him. Razumikhin cannot help Raskolnikov himself in any way - neither before the murder, nor even more so after it. He thinks “with disgust” about the possibility of “opening up” to Razumikhin.
One of the ways of expressing is associated with the image of Razumikhin author's position in the novel. Razumikhin has the features of a hero-reasoner, expressing some of the views of the writer himself. Razumikhin gives a moral assessment of Raskolnikov’s theory: “blood according to conscience” is “more terrible than official permission to shed blood, legal.” His reasoning about the problem of crime reflects the point of view of Dostoevsky himself, who was against shifting responsibility for crime to social environment. “Living soul”, “nature” is not limited to “logic” - this is one of the main ideas of Dostoevsky’s novel.
The image of Razumikhin, despite being somewhat sketchy in comparison with the image of the main character, is also important from the point of view ideological issues novel. Razumikhin, like Raskolnikov, is one of the representatives of Russian youth of the 60s. XIX century The author shows that the paths of modern youth can be different. Someone becomes a “slave” of fashionable theories, rejects God and “organic” morality, as Raskolnikov did. But among educated youth there are also those who retain their moral “ground”, and therefore, internal independence, the ability to distinguish between good and evil.
Investigator Porfiry Petrovich- one of the most striking and “mysterious” characters in the novel. He appears in the novel only in the third part. His presence is strictly determined by the plot basis of the work - Raskolnikov’s crime. He enters into a relationship of confrontation and struggle with the main character, since his professional task is to solve the “case” and arrest the killer.
The character of the investigator is complex, although described very succinctly. Porfiry Petrovich is undoubtedly very smart. But he never reveals his views on life and constantly changes his behavior. “The little guy is smart, intelligent, not at all stupid, just has a special way of thinking... He’s distrustful, a skeptic, a cynic... he likes to deceive, that is, not to deceive, but to fool...” says Razumikhin about him. The investigator “pretends everything,” defending completely opposite points of view, “just to fool everyone.” Raskolnikov arouses strong antipathy from the very beginning. He is annoyed by Porfiry Petrovich's behavior, his pretense and mockery.
Pretense permanent shift masks, “acting” is the investigator’s method of work, based on psychological pressure on the suspect, which is why Raskolnikov calls him “an open secret”: “You’re all lying, ... damn open!” Porfiry Petrovich uses theatrical effects that can have a strong, unpredictable impact on the defendant and force him to confess or somehow “give himself away” (during the second conversation with Raskolnikov, he says that he has prepared a “surprise” for him). Raskolnikov understands this and is therefore in particularly strong nervous tension.
The goal of the “game” that the investigator plays with Raskolnikov is to take the criminal by surprise. That is why he reveals his cards to him, confidentially informing him that he considers him the murderer, after Mi-kolka took the blame and Porfiry Petrovich himself “psychologically” explained this to Razumikhin.
Porfiry Petrovich is interesting in that he gives a psychological commentary on the crime committed by Raskolnikov, and insightfully determines the character of the criminal himself: “Here you can see the determination to take the first step, but a special kind of determination - he decided, but how he fell from a mountain or flew from a bell tower, and even It’s as if he didn’t come with his own feet. He forgot to close the door behind him, but he killed, killed two, according to the theory. He killed, and he didn’t manage to take the money, but what he managed to grab, he demolished under a stone. It wasn’t enough for him that he endured the torment when he was sitting outside the door, and there was a pounding on the door and the bell was ringing - no, then he went to the empty apartment, half-delirious, to remember this bell, he needed to experience the cold in his spine again...”
It is the investigator who first mentions Raskolnikov’s theory (part three, chapter 5) and briefly formulates its essence: “The whole point is that in their article all people are somehow divided into “ordinary” and “extraordinary.” Ordinary people must live in obedience and have no right to transgress the law, because, you see, they are ordinary. And extraordinary people have the right to commit all sorts of crimes and break the law in every possible way, precisely because they are extraordinary.” He is the only one of all the heroes of the novel who guessed that Raskolnikov’s crime had an “ideological” background: “After all, when you wrote your article, it really can’t be... that you didn’t consider yourself , well, at least a little bit, also an “extraordinary” person and speaking a new word - in your sense, that is... And if so, sir, then would you really decide on your own - well, there, in view of some everyday failures and embarrassment or for the benefit of all humanity somehow - to step over an obstacle?.. Well, for example, to kill and rob?.. "
Porfiry Petrovich’s unexpected visit to the criminal and his offer to “turn himself in” and “suffer” could not fail to impress Raskolnikov. This visit was one of the factors that pushed him to recognition. Although Raskolnikov perfectly understood that the investigator was only “averting Razumikhin’s eyes to Mikolka,” his words that “this is not Mikolka,” “after everything that was said before and so similar to a renunciation, were too unexpected.” Frankness with the suspect is associated with a certain risk for the professional success of Porfiry Petrovich. But he studied Raskolnikov’s character very well and understands that he “will not run away”: “A man will run away, a fashionable sectarian will run away... But you don’t believe your theory anymore - what will you run away with? .. . It’s nasty and difficult on the run, but first of all you need a life and a certain position, corresponding to the air... Run away and come back yourself. You can’t get by without us.”
Porfiry Petrovich gives a moral assessment of Raskolnikov’s crime. She is devoid of moralizing and deeply psychological: “He killed, but for honest man He reveres himself, despises people, walks like a pale angel.” This judgment emphasizes the contrast between the meaning of Raskolnikov’s act from the point of view of traditional morality and the hero’s ethical self-esteem. But the intellectual investigator understands that the crime was the result of Raskolnikov’s delusion. In his opinion, the criminal has the possibility of moral rebirth: “I invented the theory, and it was a shame that it fell through, that it turned out to be very unoriginal! It turned out to be mean, that’s true, but after all, you’re not a hopeless scoundrel.”
Porfiry Petrovich gives Raskolnikov a chance to confess himself: after all, he is concerned not only with exposure, but also with the “correction” of the criminal. He convinces Raskolnikov that life is not over, that “there will still be a lot of it ahead,” he just needs to “find faith or God”: “I know that he doesn’t believe, but don’t philosophize; surrender to life directly, without reasoning; Don’t worry, he’ll take you straight to the shore and put you on your feet.” He appeals to Raskolnikov’s conscience, to his sense of justice: “And you have a great heart and be less afraid. ... If you have taken such a step, then brace yourself. This is justice. Now do what justice requires.” Porfiry Petrovich expresses an important idea that “there is an idea in suffering.” This reflects Dostoevsky’s own view of the moral and psychological meaning of punishment: according to the writer, a criminal can atone for his guilt, his sin and at the same time return to life only by going through suffering that cleanses the soul.
There are many episodic characters in Crime and Punishment. The old woman pawnbroker, Lizaveta, Mikolka and others not only create the background, the atmosphere of the action, but also play important role in the plot of the novel, in the sequential change of events and their motivation.
The image of the old pawnbroker Alena Ivanovna, although she almost does not participate in the action, is a capacious, symbolic image: the old woman is not only a victim of a crime, but also a symbol of the world’s evil, which Raskolnikov dared to attack. From his point of view, she is a “useless louse”, “on common scales life”, her existence is meaningless, and her money, used rationally, can, as the hero believes, contribute to the happiness of humanity.
Another episodic character, not even named - the tradesman, “the man from underground” - brought a lot of trouble and worry to the main character. His testimony against Raskolnikov could have led to the exposure of the criminal, if not for an unexpected plot twist - Mikolka’s confession.
Lebezyatnikov is a caricatured version of a nihilist,“an extremely vulgar and simple-minded little man.” He understands the ideas he worships very superficially: “He was one of that countless and varied legion of vulgarities, dead idiots and half-educated tyrants who instantly pester the most fashionable current idea in order to immediately vulgarize it, in order to instantly caricature everything that they sometimes serve in the most sincere way.” However, his true beliefs are much more humane than those of the protagonist. In terms of the level of intellectual development, Lebezyatnikov is much lower than Raskolnikov, but “he had a rather soft heart.” Despite the fact that Lebezyatnikov “really was stupid,” he has a moral sense and is intolerant of vile acts. Lebezyatnikov's attitude towards the dying Katerina Ivanovna testifies to his unforgiving nature (they once even got into a fight with Katerina Ivanovna) and his ability to be compassionate.
The image of Lizaveta, second, random victim Raskolnikov, is associated with the antithesis of “humility” and “rebellion”. Lizaveta belongs to the category of “humble” characters - such as Sonya or Raskolnikov’s late fiancee (who is mentioned several times in the novel). Lizaveta appears as a character only twice. The image of Lizaveta is very laconic: “She was... a clumsy, timid and humble girl, almost an idiot, thirty-five years old... a bourgeois, not an official, a girl, and terribly awkward, remarkably tall, with long, as if with her feet turned out, always wearing worn-out goat shoes, and kept herself clean.” Her image is created mainly in the statements of the characters (the student and the officer, whose conversation was overheard by Raskolnikov, Nastasya, Sonya).
Lizaveta’s characteristic features are kindness, meekness, and “irreciprocity.” She always played the role of a “victim”: at first she was in “complete slavery” to her sister, suffered “even beatings” from her, and then fell under Raskolnikov’s ax. According to Sonya, Lizaveta “was fair,” she is a “saint,” one of those who “will see God.” Sonya and Lizaveta are very similar: they were friends, read the Gospel together and “talked.” “Both are holy fools,” Raskolnikov thinks of them, who “recognizes” Lizaveta in Sonya. Confessing to Sonya about the murder, he “suddenly saw Lizaveta’s face in her face.” Everything connected with her matters to Raskolnikov. symbolic meaning(he promises Sonya to tell “who killed Lizaveta”, it was with her that Sonya exchanged crosses, the Gospel that Sonya reads was brought to her by Lizaveta).
Lizaveta’s death, absolutely meaningless from a “practical” point of view, refutes Raskolnikov’s “reasonable” arguments about “the old woman’s money doomed to the monastery”, which can be used “to serve all humanity and the common cause” and thereby “atone” for the crime.
Image of Mikolka associated with the idea of voluntary suffering, which, according to Dostoevsky, leads to the salvation of the soul. Mikolka seemed to set an example for Raskolnikov. In addition, Mikolka’s confession was unexpected plot twist, disrupted the plans of Porfiry Petrovich and delayed the outcome of the conflict between the main character and the investigator.
The image of the “humiliated and insulted.” The theme of the humiliated and insulted" in Dostoevsky's work goes back to the theme of the "little man", traditional for writers " natural school» 1840s
The spiritual world of “little people” as depicted by N.V. Gogol and other writers, predecessors and contemporaries of Dostoevsky, is extremely scarce. Dostoevsky made an important addition to the understanding of the character of the “little man”, showing for the first time that the inner world of this hero is very complex. In comparison with Pushkin’s Samson Vyrin (“ Stationmaster") and Evgeniy (" Bronze Horseman"), Gogol's Bashmachkin ("The Overcoat"), characters from "physiological essays" of the 1840s. Dostoevsky's heroes are “humiliated and insulted.” The writer is interested not in the social and everyday, but in the moral and psychological aspect of the “little man” theme. Social status- the only similarity between Dostoevsky’s heroes and “little people”: these are residents of St. Petersburg, balancing on the brink of poverty and misery. But in their spiritual status they are not similar to their literary “brothers”.
Depicting the “humiliated and insulted,” Dostoevsky used the principle of contrast between the external and the internal, between the humiliating social status man and his increased self-esteem. Dostoevsky's heroes are people with great ambitions. Main feature their spiritual world- an acute feeling of one’s undeserved “humiliation.” The source of humiliation and insult is not only specific people, but the entire world order. Their indignation often does not have a clear addressee: they are “offended” by life itself, acutely feel the injustice of everything that happens, and demand more from life than it can give them.
“The humiliated and insulted” are always in a special psychological state, their mental strength extremely tense. They are characterized by increased nervous excitability, heightened impressionability, even suspiciousness. The experience of their “humiliation” (which they sometimes tend to exaggerate) in combination with their inherent pride (which not only does not disappear, but even increases in proportion to humiliation) is reflected in their relationships with other people, making it difficult to communicate with them. They tend to suspect others of their intention to humiliate them even more. Even a good deed causes moral torment in them: for them it is alms, and alms humiliates a person.
The inner world of the “humiliated and insulted” is complex and contradictory. Many of them are thinking heroes, with a highly developed moral sense. In terms of their intellectual level, they are much higher than those around them. These people are capable of experiencing “high” feelings - pity, compassion, in contrast to the “masters of life” who “humiliate” and “insult” their human dignity. They often experience dissatisfaction with themselves, and not just with the world and others. This is a consequence of their intense inner life, constant reflection. For example, the hero of Notes from Underground hates and despises not only the world, but also himself. Raskolnikov is very demanding of himself, feels acute dissatisfaction with himself and his actions, but this goes well with his exorbitant ambitions.
In Crime and Punishment, Dostoevsky addressed the theme of the “humiliated and insulted” for the last time. It is presented in various aspects: the writer showed both the external side of their lives (urban and everyday environment), and the diversity of characters and destinies of suffering, unsettled, deprived people. The author reveals the complexity and diversity of the world of the “humiliated and insulted,” which comes to the fore in the novel. The Marmeladovs are far from the only representatives of this world: the problem posed by Dostoevsky is much broader. The “humiliated and insulted” include Raskolnikov himself, his mother and sister, and some episodic characters(for example, Lizaveta).
The novel “Crime and Punishment” especially fully depicts the inner world of the “humiliated and insulted” heroes. Here, in contrast to Dostoevsky’s previous works, each of which was devoted to a single variation of the image, three are presented at once possible options development of the characters and destinies of the “humiliated and insulted.”
One of the possibilities for the spiritual development of such people is Raskolnikov's fate. This is one of those heroes of Dostoevsky who oppose themselves to the world and other people, choose “ rebellion” against society and the morality legitimized by it. Raskolnikov's character is close to the character of the hero of Notes from Underground. The result of long philosophical reflections Raskolnikov on imperfection human nature and the impossibility of changing it became his theory: “I then kept asking myself: why am I so stupid, that if others are stupid and if I know for sure that they are stupid, then I myself don’t want to be smarter? Then I learned... that if you wait until everyone becomes smart, it will take too long... Then I also learned that this will never happen, that people will not change and no one can change them, and it’s not worth the effort spend! ... This is their law.... And now I know... that whoever is strong and strong in mind and spirit is the ruler over them! Whoever dares a lot is right with them.” Raskolnikov is convinced that “power is given only to those who dare to bend down and take it,” and everyone else is obliged to obey. He did not want to be one of those who “submit”, “got angry.” Raskolnikov “wanted to dare” - this was precisely the main motive for his crime (“I wanted to dare and killed... I just wanted to dare, Sonya, that’s the whole reason!”).
Sonechka Marmeladova- an absolutely opposite version of the development of the character of a “humiliated and insulted” person. She denies rebellion and chooses the path most acceptable to Dostoevsky - the path of humility before God. Sonya is a “harlot”, a criminal from the point of view of public morality, but from a Christian point of view she is a saint, since she sacrifices herself for the well-being of her neighbors and keeps God in her soul (here the author again uses the principle of contrast between the external and the internal).
Sonya is the same complex nature as Raskolnikov. She lives an intense spiritual life, and also suffers from her “humiliation”: she is “tormented” by the thought of her “dishonorable and shameful position.” Obviously, she, like Raskolnikov, thought a lot about the possibility of “ending everything at once,” about suicide. Humility is the result of a conscious moral choice made by Sonya. She is aware of her sinfulness (“after all, I am... dishonest, I am great, great sinner") and renounces personal ambitions, therefore she is morally free, unlike Raskolnikov, who preaches personal freedom, but in fact turns out to be a slave to his false “theory”.
For Raskolnikov, it remains a mystery how Sonya, with her character and “the development that she received,” could “remain in this position and not go crazy, if she was not able to throw herself into the water,” as “such shame and such baseness" are combined in it with "other opposite and holy feelings." In his opinion, “it would be fairer and smarter to dive straight into the water and end it all at once.” But Sonya has found reliable moral support for herself, which keeps her from the temptations of self-will and helps her avoid the disintegration of her personality, which would seem inevitable in her position. Sonya’s spiritual “core” is faith (“What would I be without God?”) and compassionate love for Katerina Ivanovna and the children who depend on her and need her self-sacrifice (“...What will happen to them?” ?).
The story with Luzhin is a test of the “truth” of Sonya’s humility. Raskolnikov, having a mental “dispute” with her, thinks: “Well, Sofya Semyonovna, let’s see what you’re going to say now!” Luzhin's cynicism became a moral shock for her. She “knew before that it was easier to destroy her than anyone else, and anyone could offend her with almost impunity.” But to Sonya “until that very moment... it seemed that it was possible to somehow avoid trouble - with caution, meekness, submission to everyone and everyone. Her disappointment was too much.”
But then this disappointment was momentary and did not shake Sonya’s moral convictions or push her to “revolt.” She consciously avoids “empty questions”: they contradict her faith, no person “has the right” to decide or even ask them. To Raskolnikov’s provocative question (“Should Luzhin live and do abominations, or should Katerina Ivanovna die? ... how would you decide: which of them should die?”) Sonya replies: “Why are you asking what is impossible to happen? ... After all, I cannot know God’s providence... And why are you asking what cannot be asked? ...Who made me the judge here: who should live and who should not live?”
Another option for the fate of the “humiliated and insulted” is the fate of the Marmeladovs, people who have “nowhere to go” and have reached a moral impasse.
Marmeladov- a person who has fallen, both socially and morally. His appearance is quite absurd: “There was something very strange about him; there seemed to be even enthusiasm in his gaze—perhaps there was sense and intelligence—but at the same time there seemed to be a flicker of madness.” Marmeladov behaves proudly and even arrogantly: he looked at the visitors to the tavern “with a tinge of some arrogant disdain, as if at people of lower status and development, with whom he has no business speaking.” Raskolnikov, who observed Marmeladov, was unpleasantly struck by the absurdity of his behavior and state of mind: “This tavern, his depraved appearance, five nights on hay barges and damask, and at the same time this painful love for his wife and family confused his listener. Raskolnikov listened intently, but with a painful feeling. He was annoyed that he came here.”
In Marmeladov and his wife, Dostoevsky showed the spiritual degradation of the “humiliated and insulted” (Marmeladov’s drunkenness, Katerina Ivanovna’s madness). They are incapable of either rebellion or humility. Their pride is so exorbitant that humility is impossible for them. They “revolt,” but their “rebellion” is tragicomic and caricatured. For Marmeladov, these are drunken rantings, “tavern conversations with various strangers” that have become his habit: “This habit turns into a need for some drinkers, and mainly for those of them who are treated strictly at home and pushed around. That’s why in drinking company they always try to get an excuse for themselves, and if possible, even respect.” Marmeladov is almost proud of his “pigness” (“I am a born beast”), happily telling Raskolnikov that he drank “even his wife’s stockings”, “with great dignity” reporting that Katerina Ivanovna “tears out his hair.” He clowns around with his “humility”: “And this is my pleasure!” And this is not for my pain, but for us, dear sir,” he shouted, shaking his hair and even once hitting his forehead on the floor.” Marmeladov’s obsessive “self-flagellation” has nothing to do with true humility.
For Katerina Ivanovna, “rebellion” degenerates into hysteria, into scandalous behavior. This is a tragedy turning into a square, rough and ridiculous action. She often attacks those around her for no reason, turning them against herself, and she herself “runs into trouble” and humiliation (every now and then she insults her landlady, as a result of which she is kicked out into the street with her children, she goes to some “general” “ seek justice”, from where she is also expelled in disgrace). Any appearance of Katerina Ivanovna in the novel is associated with scandal. She blames not only the people around her, but even God for her suffering, and before her death she refuses the priest: “I have no sins!.. God must forgive anyway... He himself knows how much I suffered!.. But he won’t forgive.” , it’s not necessary!..”
Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky’s novel “Crime and Punishment” can be called one of the most psychologically deep and controversial novels of Russian classical literature. Exactly at this work such fundamental issues as the process of personality formation, finding one’s place in society, and forming one’s own worldview through a lot of trial and error are touched upon.
Rodion Raskolnikov, the main character of Dostoevsky's novel, is a contradictory collective image, in which compassion, cruelty, determination, and weakness are intertwined. Raskolnikov cannot be unambiguously identified as a “positive” or “negative” character, because while reading the novel one gets the feeling that it is literally woven from contradictions. And it is precisely in order to emphasize the dominant character traits of the main character that Dostoevsky resorts to introducing character doubles.
Luzhin
The most expressive double of Rodion Raskolnikov in the novel, in my opinion, is Pyotr Petrovich Luzhin – the fiancé of the main character’s sister, Dunya, a man who clearly demonstrates what exactly life leads to according to Dostoevsky’s theory of “trembling creatures with rights.” Being a business and successful middle-aged man, he does not recognize either selflessness or nobility, believing that everyone in this world strives for only one thing - to seek their own material gain. Luzhin, focused on himself and only himself, absolutely neglects to care about the people around him, being in the mistaken belief that the whole world revolves around his person. Egoism to the extreme, the absence of even a slight inclination towards altruism and humanity - this is what this double of Raskolnikov is, this is what Rodion Raskolnikov would have become if he had continued to follow the principles of his theory.
Svidrigailov
Raskolnikov's second double is Arkady Ivanovich Svidrigailov, a fifty-year-old man, a nobleman who once served in the cavalry. It is curious that his surname is telling - consonant with the German “geil” (voluptuous), it clearly complements the portrait of the hero. IN this character It’s as if two people are getting along - calm and sensible and angry and cynical. Being a rapist, unlike Raskolnikov, not prone to pangs of conscience, he donates money to both Sonechka Marmeladova and Katerina Mikhailovna. This fact complements the contradictory and ambiguous image of Arkady Ivanovich. In turn, the detail in the form of Svidrigailov’s superstition casts doubt in the soul about whether he is really as dry and cynical as he wants to seem to many people.
Porfiry Petrovich
The third and most atypical double of Rodion Raskolnikov is Porfiry Petrovich, the investigator who led the main character to clean water. Inducing the character to repentance and confession, Porfiry Petrovich also recalls his own theories, similar to those of Raskolnikov, which he was fond of in his youth, but over time he became convinced of their falsity.
Thus, in Dostoevsky’s novel Crime and Punishment, readers can find quite a few doubles of Rodion Raskolnikov. In almost every character in the work it is possible to discern certain characteristic features that highlight the image of the main character, emphasizing all his most striking personal characteristics. Fedor Mikhailovich, being an excellent expert human soul, with the help of his novel, produces a real reassessment of values in readers, forcing them to think about themselves and pay attention to their own environment.
Essay on Raskolnikov's Doubles in the novel Crime and Punishment, grade 10
The uniqueness of the famous imperishable novel by F. M. Dostoevsky “Crime and Punishment” lies in the fact that every hero in it has his own clear outlook on life, his own voice, his own thoughts.
Rodion Raskolnikov is presented as the central character - a former student who suddenly left his studies due to financial difficulties. He develops his personal concept, based on the division of the entire society into two categories - simple and complex. According to his theory, difficult and extraordinary people had every right to control the lives of common people.
The focus in the novel is on Raskolnikov’s thoughts about his imperious individuality, which is ready to spit on the spiritual values of society for the sake of fulfilling the most important task. This theory is mirrored in others characters, puts it into practice, tries himself in them.
The concept of the presence of Raskolnikov’s spiritual doubles is clearly visible in the work. This system allows the creator of the novel to fully reveal the point of view of the central character, his worldview. Insignificant heroes are presented as spiritual doubles, but each of them personified the doctrine of “those who have the rights” through the example of their fate.
Perhaps the most indisputable and prominent double of Raskolnikov is Arkady Ivanovich Svidrigailov, a mysterious and paradoxical character. Svidrigailov is a weighty personality, a vulgar man and a gambler, with a disregard for moral and spiritual traditions. He absolutely does not waste his energy and time on thoughts of villainy. Confidence in his rightness is what makes him act and not think. Raskolnikov’s modified concept, brought to life, is Svidrigailov himself. The most powerful argument that distinguishes him from Rodion is the complete absence of remorse and mental anguish from repentance. However, closer to the denouement of the novel, compassion and pity are resurrected in it. Realizing how worthless and meaningless his life is, Svidrigailov commits suicide.
Another psychological copy of Rodion Raskolnikov, with whom the spiritual commonality is clearly visible, can be considered the court adviser - the scoundrel Luzhin, perhaps the most hated hero of Fyodor Mikhailovich. Rodion’s second double appears in the work as a greedy, selfish, vain person. He looks down on people of a lower class, with contempt and disgust. Their similarity means absolutely identical methods of bringing their goals to life. Yes, their intentions do not coincide. Raskolnikov tried to shout to the whole world, to draw attention to himself as an influential and majestic person. Well, the ultimate dream of Pyotr Petrovich Luzhin was the opportunity to exploit the advantages of such people in his own interests. Selfishness and self-love completely enveloped him.
It is no coincidence that the novel features characters so similar to Raskolnikov.
Thus, through spiritual twins, his theory reveals itself to be completely unproven and untenable. Permissiveness is impossible in principle and does not apply to any person. In any case, it does not lead to positive consequences. Realizing this, Raskolnikov reveals the portrait of his personality completely, because his formation took place throughout the entire work.
Several interesting essays
- Dispute about truth and lies in the play At Gorky's Day, essay
Maxim Gorky's play "At the Depths", created by the writer in the twentieth century, reflects hard life people of that time and touches on many primary questions that every person asks throughout his life
- Essay on Brodsky's painting Summer Garden in the fall, grade 7 (description)
Rich, bright and at the same time sad and dull - this is the autumn time. But despite this great time year and beckons artists to paint it. A lot of autumn paintings written by the Russian artist Isaac Brodsky
- Essay Analysis The Philistine in the Nobility by Molière
The main character of the work, Jourdain, who came from the lower strata of society, wants to become a nobleman at all costs. To do this, he hires people who teach him how to dress, speak, music and fencing.
- Essay based on Levitan's painting Forest Lake (description)
This painting, like many other works of the artist, speaks of true love to your homeland.
In the novel “Crime and Punishment” by F. M. Dostoevsky, the device of antithesis is widely used; the system of characters is built on it. Each of the characters surrounding Raskolnikov, to one degree or another, reveals a certain trait of the main character. Parallels are drawn between Raskolnikov and other characters, creating a unique system of doubles. Raskolnikov's doubles are, first of all, Luzhin and Svidrigailov. For them, “everything is permitted,” although for different reasons.
Arkady Ivanovich Svidrigailov was a nobleman, served for two years in the cavalry, then lived in St. Petersburg. This is a “perfectly preserved man” about fifty years old. The face resembles a mask and strikes with something “terribly unpleasant.” The look of Svidrigailov’s bright blue eyes is “somehow too heavy and motionless.” In the novel, he is the most mysterious figure: his past is not fully clarified, his intentions and actions are difficult to define and unpredictable, non-standard for a scoundrel, for such a sinister character as he appears at first (for example, in a letter to Raskolnikov’s mother). The image of Svidrigailov, placed next to the image of Raskolnikov, reveals one of the sides philosophical idea, which is as follows. Under the influence of certain circumstances, a person’s moral sense may disappear, but the general moral law this won't make it go away. Svidrigailov has placed himself outside of morality, he has no pangs of conscience, and, unlike Raskolnikov, he does not understand that his actions and deeds are immoral. For example, rumors about Svidrigailov’s involvement in several crimes are repeated in various interpretations; it is clear that they are not unfounded. A deaf-mute girl “cruelly insulted” by him committed suicide, and footman Philip hanged himself. It is characteristic that Svidrigailov finds “some common point” between himself and Raskolnikov; he says to Raskolnikov: “We are birds of a feather.” Svidrigailov embodies one of the possibilities of realizing the main character's idea. As a moral cynic, he is a mirror image of the ideological cynic Raskolnikov. Svidrigailov's permissiveness eventually becomes scary to Raskolnikov. Svidrigailov is terrible even to himself. He takes his own life.
Raskolnikov’s double is also Pyotr Petrovich Luzhin, a relative of Svidrigailov’s wife. Luzhin has a very high opinion of himself. Vanity and narcissism are developed in him to the point of painfulness. In his face, “cautious and grumpy,” there was something “really unpleasant and repulsive.” Home life value for Luzhin, they represent money obtained by “all sorts of means,” since thanks to money he can become equal to people occupying a higher position in society. Morally, he was guided by the theory of the “whole caftan.” According to this theory, Christian morality leads to the fact that a person, fulfilling the commandment to love his neighbor, tears his caftan, shares it with his neighbor, and as a result, both people remain “half naked.” Luzhin’s opinion is that you must love yourself first, “for everything in the world is based on personal interest.” All of Luzhin's actions are a direct consequence of his theory. According to Raskolnikov, it follows from Luzhin’s theory that “people can be cut” for their own benefit. The image of Pyotr Petrovich Luzhin serves as a living example of what Raskolnikov could have come to, gradually realizing his principle of omnipotence and power, “Bonapartism.” The difference between Raskolnikov and Luzhin is that Raskolnikov’s views were formed as a result of solving humanistic problems, and the views of his double serve as a justification for extreme selfishness, based on calculation and benefit.
Such a technique as the creation of systems of doubles is used by the author to reveal the image of Raskolnikov, comprehensively analyze and debunk his theory.
On the pages of F. M. Dostoevsky’s novel “Crime and Punishment” a wide panorama of St. Petersburg of the middle of the last century is revealed to us: pictures of city life, people, meetings flash, screams, swearing, and arguments are heard. Among the characters in a great book there are many people who attract our attention only for a few minutes, and there are people with sharply defined characters, with their own views and beliefs, who influence the main character in different ways and without whom the novel simply would not have taken place. This is the Marmeladov family, Dunya, Porfiry Petrovich, Lebezyatnikov and some others.
A special place in the novel belongs to the “powers of this world” - Luzhin and Svidrigailov, who can be considered Raskolnikov’s “doubles”.
By confronting the “ideological” killer with these people, the writer deeply refutes, exposes his theory of the ruler and the crowd, and exposes the inhumane, inhumane essence of this theory. The pictures of social evil, brilliantly drawn by Dostoevsky, convincingly prove that “the main secret in the novel lies not in the crime, but in the motives of the crime” (V. Shklovsky). All surrounding life strengthens Raskolnikov’s conviction that the murder he has planned does not contradict human laws. He is strengthened in his intention not as a criminal, but as a supporter of moral permissiveness, individualistic rebellion against society (by the way, the meaning of his last name is also indicative: a split in himself, a split in consciousness, morality, behavior). This is evidenced by his judgments about the “categories” of people, about the right of an “extraordinary” person to commit a crime, about how to distinguish an “extraordinary person from a “trembling creature.” But, having committed a crime, Raskolnikov, tormented by pangs of conscience, understands that he is not from the “class” of “those who have the right”; he despises himself for these torments, for the fact that he turned out to be a “trembling creature,” but the “theory” in his mind has not been debunked. During these terrible days for Raskolnikov, the writer pits him against Luzhin and Svidrigailov - people who, without remorse, constantly violate the laws of morality in their everyday lives and consider themselves to have the right to control the destinies of others.
Pyotr Petrovich Luzhin lives by the principle “love yourself first.” This principle allows him, without hesitation, to humiliate, destroy a person, and trample on someone else’s life. Seeking power over Dunya (he calls it love), Luzhin wants to discredit her brother by convincing everyone that Sonya Marmeladova, whom Rodion helps, is not only a prostitute, but also a thief. The heartbreaking scene during the wake at the Marmeladovs’ is unforgettable, when only an accident saves Sonya. Luzhin completely lacks a moral sense; he does not know what conscience or decency is. His callousness leads to outright meanness.
Svidrigailov is a much more complex nature. This is not a complete egoist, like Luzhin, not just a villain and a criminal. He is potentially a man of great conscience and great strength. But his behavior is unpredictable, and brutal instincts often manifest themselves in him. Dostoevsky shows that the reason for the moral and then physical death of this person is social. He comes to the conclusion that justice is impossible in this world. Hence his despair, contempt and distrust of people. Good beginnings perish in him. He does good and causes evil (remember his role in the fate of Dunya) with the same indifference - “out of boredom.” But it is impossible to live without faith in truth and goodness - and he dies, executing himself. Faced with these people, Raskolnikov cannot agree with their “morality” and at the same time cannot help but admit that they live according to his “theory”, justifying their contempt for the “crowd”, for the “inferior”. He has nothing with which to refute Svidrigailov’s assertion that they (he and Raskolnikov) are “birds of a feather” and that between them “there is a common point.”
Moreover, Raskolnikov himself tells Luzhin: “If you bring to consequences what you preached just now, it will turn out that people can be slaughtered,” thereby denouncing the theory according to which he wanted to, but could not (“nature” won!) live. The hero’s attitude towards the “powers of this world” shows that he, seeing in them his “doubles” (although he would never admit this even to himself), feels the deepest disgust for them and cannot join them, cannot accept the world people living according to his “theory”. This is the strength of Raskolnikov’s “nature”, his superiority over “ strongmen of the world this,” over all the Luzhins and Svidrigailovs. This is the hope for him moral rebirth and return to people.
